SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Cal) 998

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
AMRITA SINHA, J.
Smt. Indra Devi Rathi & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
The Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors. – Respondents
WPO 1350 of 2023
Decided on : 24-07-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Raghunath Chakraborty, Ms. Tanusree Das, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Biswajit Mukherjee, Adv., Mr. Fazlul Haque, Adv.

The owner of a property is primarily liable to pay tax, even if the property is occupied by tenants, and can recover the proportionate amount of tax from the tenants.

Headnote:

ANNUAL VALUATION - KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1980 - SECTIONS 178(6), 182, 184 - KMC (TAXATION) RULES, 1987 - RULE 5 - APPORTIONMENT OF TAX BETWEEN OWNER AND TENANTS - ANNUAL VALUATION OF PROPERTY - REVISION - NOTICE TO TENANTS - LIABILITY OF OWNER TO PAY TAX - RIGHT OF OWNER TO RECOVER TAX FROM TENANTS - DUTY OF OWNER TO SUBMIT RETURN - FAILURE TO SUBMIT RETURN - CONSEQUENCES.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, owners of a seven-storied building, challenged the annual valuation of the property, claiming that the KMC should have apportioned the tax by segregating the portion used for non-residential and residential purposes and that tenants should be made liable for payment of tax.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the petitioners failed to submit the required details to the KMC, including a list of tenants and rental status, and therefore the KMC could not apportion the tax. The Court also held that the petitioners, as owners, were primarily liable to pay the tax and could recover the proportionate amount from the tenants.

Issues: 1. Whether the KMC was obligated to apportion the tax between the owner and tenants. 2. Whether the petitioners were liable to pay the entire tax amount. 3. Whether the petitioners could recover the tax from the tenants.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The KMC was not obligated to apportion the tax as the petitioners failed to submit the required details, including a list of tenants and rental status. 2. The petitioners, as owners, were primarily liable to pay the tax. 3. The petitioners could recover the tax from the tenants in accordance with law.

Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed with no costs.

JUDGMENT :

Amrita Sinha, J.

1. The order dated 24th February, 2021 passed by the Assessor-Collector (North), Kolkata Municipal Corporation (‘KMC’ for short) allegedly in compliance of the direction passed by this Court on 26th August, 2019 in WP No. 24 of 2019 (Indra Devi Rathi & Ors. vs. KMC & Ors.) is impugned in the present writ petition.

2. By the said order annual valuation of the premises was assessed at Rs. 1,65,510/-including non-residential annual valuation of Rs. 1,37,810/-with effect from 3rd quarter of 2005-2006. Bills were accordingly raised considering the premises as partly residential and partly non-residential.

3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the same. It has been contended that the petitioners have let out most of the portions of the subject property which is a seven storied building. The ground and the first three floors of the premises are used for commercial purpose and the rest for residential use.

4. The petitioners contend that the Corporation ought to have valued the property by taking into consideration the mode of use of the same. The Corporation ought to have apportioned the tax amount by segregating the portion used for non-residential purpose and the portion used for residential purpose.

5. It has been contended that there are several tenants in the said property and the Corporation ought to have issued notices upon all the tenants individually prior to fixing the annual valuation of the subject property.

6. It has been argued that the tenants and occupiers of the subject property ought to be made liable for payment of tax and the entire burden of payment of tax ought not to be thrust upon the petitioners who are the sebaits of the debottor property.

7. In support of the submission that the tenants and occupiers of the subject property will be liable to pay tax, learned advocate for the petitioners relies upon the decision passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Calcutta Gujrati Education Society & Anr. vs. Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Ors. reported in (2003) 10 SCC 533.

8. The petitioners contend that it is the obligatory duty of the Corporation to inspect each premises and prepare the assessment book pursuant to which valuation of a property is required to be calculated. In support of such submission the learned advocate for the petitioners relies upon the provision of Section 178(6) of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 (‘the Act’ for short).

9. Prayer has been made for setting aside the impugned order of the Assessor-Collector with further direction to apportion the property tax by segregating the portion used for commercial purpose and residential purpose.

10. Learned advocate representing the Kolkata Municipal Corporation submits that the petitioners are in possession of the subject property since 1983. The petitioners, being owners of the property, are obliged to furnish a return in the prescribed form in accordance with Section 182 of the Act. According to Rule 5 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, (Taxation) Rules, 1987 return in Form C is to be filed by the owner or the person responsible to pay tax for the purpose of revision of annual valuation of the property. The same has not been done. The petitioners failed to submit any such return.

11. In compliance of the direction passed by the Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioners, the Assessor-Collector considered the issue and passed reasoned order on 24th February, 2021. It was clearly mentioned in the said order that the petitioners did not submit the detail list of tenants with rental status of the individual tenants. Only memorandum of agreement dated 16th August, 1983 and two tenancy agreements of shop rooms for letting out to the sub-tenants was submitted by the petitioners.

12. As the property is recorded in the inspection book records of the Corporation as partly commercial and partly residential, accordingly, the assessment of tax has been made. The first four floors have been assessed as non

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top